Other web Sites
Harmonica Blues  Harmonica Amps
Harmonica Links Harmonica Pages
• Archives Home
• Years
 · 1992
 · 1993
 · 1994
 · 1995
 · 1996
 · 1997 		 · 1998
 · 1999
 · 2000
 · 2001
 · 2002
 · 2003
 
Web HarpL
Ebay Searches:
Amps:
Microphones:
Effects:
Harmonicas and Gear:
Harmonica Music and Instruction:

 

 

Harp-L Archives

[Previous Message] [Next Message]
[Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]
[Start of Thread] [End of Thread]

From: fjm
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1987 07:02:32 -0700
Subject: Re: harp style

My most recent post regarding amplified vs acoustic technique had little
or nothing to do with equipment. When I say to not count the amp and
mic as an extension of the harmonica is to make a mistake I mean that to
not account for that difference using differing techniques is to make a
mistake. To site on specific example playing a bullet and going for
that Chicago sound you lose your ability to effectively mute and damp
with your hands. That's a lot of articulation and subtlety. You gain
the effects you can get from compression when you hit the amp hard with
a loud sharp attack. As Barry Bean so aptly points out a phrase played
acouscically played the same way amplified oftentimes does not work.
There's a myriad difference between the two worlds of acoustic and
amplified and between those two extremes there are manifold
possibilities of expression. What I'm talking about is subtle. The
last 10% of playing perhaps. It's all those subtle little things coming
together that make a player an Annie Raines or a Rod Piazza. Attending
the Tom Ball harmonica workshop Tom confessed that he was just ok
playing amplified. If you've heard him acoustically you know he's a
master of the instrument. I suspect that his amplified playing is
better than 99% of the people on the list but he perceives the
difference. No matter how good you get you should always fuss and want
to improve. I've been playing 24 years now. Not as long as Mike but
I'm younger and if I outlive him I'll catch up eventually. When I
started playing amplified about 15 years ago I shared an input into a
Sunn solid state coliseum head with a 2X15 cabinet and tweeters. I used
a Shure SM57 microphone and my tone was fine. Not thin but I wanted
something different, more versatile. In the equipment debates my only
point has been that some things work better than others, why settle.
Spending $1500 on a Sonny Jr is not going to make you Little Walter but
if you have the chops it might work for you. In 15 years of playing
amplified I've only used 2 different amps of my own. A Twin Reverb and
my current Concert. The only reason I dropped the Twin is that the 12"
speakers made it tough to get really loud without feeding back.

To answer the original query. Finally! I'll say for me that I feel
that acoustic is harder because amplified is like pounding 16 penny
nails with a sledge hammer. It lacks a certain subtlety. If you can
play well acoustically you'll have no trouble amplified but it is a
whole other world.

Oops I forgot to mention dynamics. The dynamics of acoustic vs
amplified are completely different. The difference between soft and
loud is narrower playing amplified. Big difference and this is not to
say that dynamic playing is not possible amplified only that the ranges
differ and the the expression is changed because of this. Fletcher
Munson (sp) right there you know there'll be a difference because of
the increased volume and our altered perception. fjm